Erection of a single storey side extension with porch and wrap around roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 July 2026 by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010962 59 Speke Road, Woolton, Liverpool L25 8SA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Kevin McMahon against the decision of Liverpool City Council. • The application Ref is 26H/0543. • The development proposed is erection of a single storey side extension with porch and wrap around roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a single storey side extension with porch and wrap around roof at 59 Speke Road, Woolton, Liverpool L25 8SA in accordance with the terms of application ref: 26H/0543 and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan and Drawing number 1210-ABF-XX-ZZ-DR-A-002 – Proposed floor plans and elevations. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal concerns a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located within a row of other semi-detached dwellings and at a slight bend in the Speke Road. The single storey extension would include a front porch. The dwelling is set within an almost triangular plot with a wider frontage to Speke Road than most of the immediately neighbouring dwellings. 4. The Council considers that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of neighbours. I see no reason to disagree given that the Appeal Decision 6010962 2 proposal would replace an existing garage and kitchen extension located to the side of the building and would cause no harm to the privacy or outlook of the occupants of 57 and 61 Speke Road at either side of the appeal building. 5. The Council’s supplementary guidance: SPG1 Household Extensions advises that residential side extensions should not exceed half the width of the original dwelling. The proposed side extension would be around 4.4 metres in width and therefore greater that half the width of the dwelling by around 1 metre. The Council indicates that several dwellings in Speke Road, including numbers 29 and 53, have side extensions which are in compliance with SPG1. The appellant has also referred me to a side extension, which replaced an existing garage and was granted permission by the Council at 79 Manor Road, Woolton. That also involved an extension that was greater than half the width of the dwelling. 6. Whilst these other developments are a material consideration, I must determine this appeal on the basis of its particular site circumstances having regard to development plan policies. The side extension would be wider than the existing garage by around 900 mm. The wider frontage than normal at the appeal site would result in a reasonable separation distance for the side wall of the extension from the angled side elevation of 61 Speke Road. Trees and a boundary hedge behind a low frontage wall also form part of the setting for the proposed development and would provide a degree of screening of the extension when approaching the appeal site from the south along Speke Road. The extension has also been designed with a hipped roof which would reduce its massing and visual impact. 7. Although the proposed extension would fail to comply with the Council’s guidance in SPG1 I consider that its particular site circumstances would mean that the proposed development would not be visually intrusive. The proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the appeal building or the streetscene. Therefore, it would fail to conflict with Liverpool Local Plan policy H8 which seeks to ensure that the size, scale, and materials of development are in keeping with the original dwelling and the surrounding area. It would fail to conflict with Local Plan policy UD1, with no significant harm to local character and distinctiveness. There would also be no conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. Conditions 8. In addition to the standard condition for the commencement of development a condition is imposed requiring the use of matching external materials to retain the character and appearance of the development as a whole. A condition is also included to specify the approved plans. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, the proposed development would not conflict with the development plan as a whole and should be allowed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR